American NFL Football (28 Viewers)

acmilan

Plusvalenza Akbar
Nov 8, 2005
10,722
Saying that Jordy was the only reason for Rodgers success doesn't make sense from a purely logical standpoint. Maybe you're right, but maybe Rodgers was simply great the last few years, with Jordy helping a little, and now has a spectacularly bad year and Jordy wouldn't help much. You don't have anything to prove either point, so don't act like your version is the only one possible.

- - - Updated - - -



He missed it :weee:
Not saying Rodgers is surely done, or never was to begin with. Just that when you consider all things on the table, it's a logical question to ask.
Not having Jordy this year could be a legit excuse for the Pack to lose the NFC title game or the SB. What we are witnessing, however, is a team that is lucky to even be in the play-offs.
As I said, great Qbs elevate their teams above the circumstances, they don't become part of them.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
42,253
Not saying Rodgers is surely done, or never was to begin with. Just that when you consider all things on the table, it's a logical question to ask.
Not having Jordy this year could be a legit excuse for the Pack to lose the NFC title game or the SB. What we are witnessing, however, is a team that is lucky to even be in the play-offs.
As I said, great Qbs elevate their teams above the circumstances, they don't become part of them.
Nah. If you've watched the Pack this year, Rodgers has been terribly inaccurate with his throws, and his timing is way off. To make matters worse, our O-line has played appallingly bad, both in pass-blocking and in run-blocking. The whole team is way off this year. We'll see next year if they sort this shit out or not.
 

acmilan

Plusvalenza Akbar
Nov 8, 2005
10,722
Nah. If you've watched the Pack this year, Rodgers has been terribly inaccurate with his throws, and his timing is way off. To make matters worse, our O-line has played appallingly bad, both in pass-blocking and in run-blocking. The whole team is way off this year. We'll see next year if they sort this shit out or not.
kind of my point all along ... only, you know, with a troll twist :D

- - - Updated - - -
@Dru - congrats on the win, boobie :tup:
 

Völler

Always spot on
May 6, 2012
23,091
Next year we are doing a priority waiver and ppr.
We should do a list of all the things to change before we forget it.

- Waiver wire
- PPR (preferably 0.5 :p )
- More minus points for QB interceptions
- Flex RB/WR/TE
- Minus points for missed extra point/FG by kicker
- Fix the 100 yards bonuses. Why an extra bonus for 100 yards compared to 99 yards?
 

acmilan

Plusvalenza Akbar
Nov 8, 2005
10,722
We should do a list of all the things to change before we forget it.

- Waiver wire
- PPR (preferably 0.5 :p )
- More minus points for QB interceptions
- Flex RB/WR/TE
- Minus points for missed extra point/FG by kicker
- Fix the 100 yards bonuses. Why an extra bonus for 100 yards compared to 99 yards?
defensive scoring is stupid as it is right now - it's way too easy to score in today's NFL and Ds lose points way too quickly when scored upon.

also, I think there is too much of an emphasis on field players (RBs, WRs, TEs) scoring a TD. 6 pts for a TD allows for garbage fantasy scores by players, who may well be useless otherwise - just too big a gap between relevant real-world and fantasy contribution, imo.
I'd suggest 6 pts for a QB TD and 4 for a TD by field players.

- - - Updated - - -

We should do a list of all the things to change before we forget it.

- Waiver wire
- PPR (preferably 0.5 :p )
- More minus points for QB interceptions
- Flex RB/WR/TE
- Minus points for missed extra point/FG by kicker
- Fix the 100 yards bonuses. Why an extra bonus for 100 yards compared to 99 yards?
Not sure adding a TE to the flex options would change much - not many relevant options at that position as is, let alone having two worth a start.
I suggest we consider making one of the Wr spots a flex - 2 WRs, 2 RBs, 2 flex (Wr/RB).
 

acmilan

Plusvalenza Akbar
Nov 8, 2005
10,722


Seems what we know for sure now, as confirmed by Peyton's agent, is that an HGH shipment(s) was sent to and arrived at the Manning household, presumably addressed to his wife, Ashley.
Guess that leaves us with two competing theories - Ashley likes mixing in some HGH in the backing soda for her pastry recipes ... or it was for her pro-athlete husband, who was going thru a period in his career where he could have really used some HGH.

Gee ... it's really tough to pick the more likely scenario of the two. But you know - "It can't be Peyton. Not Peyton."

- - - Updated - - -

P.S. There are theories floating around about Peyton's wife taking HGH as part of a fertility treatment but she could have done that in the U.S. too, if it was really needed. Why go half a world away to get such a treatment, not without its own risks if not administered properly, at a shady "anti-aging" clinic, if that was indeed the case?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 20)